Reyno C. Dimson Vs. Gerry T.

Chua
G.R. No. 192318. December 5, 2016

Facts
The instant case filed by the petitioner, representing the other 14 complainants, against the
respondent, is an offshoot of the labor case entitled "Reyno Dimson, et al. v. SEASUMCO, MAC,
United Coconut Planters Bank (UPCB), and Cotabato Sugar Central Co., Inc. (COSUCECO)." On
September 22, 2003, the said labor case for illegal dismissal with monetary claims was decided in favor
of the complainants.8 Hence, SEASUMCO and MAC, as well as the members of their board of
directors, were ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of Three Million Eight Hundred Twenty-
Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos and Fifty-One Centavos (P3,827,470.51).

The LA's decision became final and executory but the judgment remained unsatisfied.
Consequently, the petitioner filed an Ex-parte Motion for the issuance of an amended alias writ of
execution asking for the inclusion of the board of directors arid corporate officers of SEASUMCO and
MAC to hold them liable for satisfaction of the said decision.

In an Order dated August 16, 2007, the LA granted the motion; hence, an amended alias writ of
execution was issued which now included the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent elevated the
matter to the NLRC by filing a Memorandum of Appeal arguing that he was denied due process.

In a Resolution dated January 11, 2008, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and
sustained the findings of the LA. The respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the NLRC
Resolution dated July 31, 2008 denied his motion.

Hence, he filed a petition for certiorari with application for temporary restraining order
(TRO)/preliminary injunction before the CA. He maintained that the labor tribunals violated his right to
due process when the LA authorized the issuance of the amended alias writ of execution against him
for the corporation's judgment debt, although he has never been a party to the underlying suit.

Issue
Whether the respondent can be held solidarily liable with the corporation, of which he was an
officer and a stockholder, when he was not served with summons and was never impleaded as a party
to the case.

Ruling
No. Following the explicit language of the NLRC Rules, notices or summons shall be served on
the parties to the case personally. The same rule allows under special circumstances, that service of
summons may be effected in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court. The service of
summons in cases before the LAs shall be served on the parties personally or by registered mail,
provided that in special circumstances, service of summons ,.nay be effected in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.

It is basic that the LA cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent without the
latter being served with summons. However, if there is no valid service of summons, court can still
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by virtue of the latter's voluntary appearance. 31
In this case, since the respondent is one of the officers of SEASUMCO, service of summons must be
made to him personally or by registered mail. However, as borne by the records, it is evident that no
service of summons and notices were served on the respondent and he was not impleaded in NLRC
RAB Case No. 12-01-00005-03. He was hauled to the case after he reacted to the improper execution
of his properties and was actually dragged to court by mere motion of the petitioner with whom he has
no privity of contract and after the decision in the main case had already become final and executory. \

Court scanned the records but found nothing to indicate that summons with respect to the said
complaints were ever served upon the respondent. The petitioner in fact does not even dispute the
respondent's claim that no summons or notices were ever issued and served on him either personally or
through registered mail. True to his claim, the respondent, indeed, was never summoned by the LA.
Besides, even assuming that the respondent has knowledge of a labor case against SEASUMCO, this
will not serve the same purpose as summons to him. More so, the respondent did not voluntarily appear
before the LA as to submit himself to its jurisdiction. Contrary to the petitioner's position, the validity
of a judgment or order of a court or quasi-judicial tribunal which has become final and executory may
be attacked when the records show that it lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment. For a judgment
rendered against one in a case where jurisdiction over his person was not acquired is void, and a void
judgment maybe assailed or impugned at any time either directly or collaterally by means of a petition
filed in the same or separate case, or by resisting such judgment in any action or proceeding wherein it
is invoked.

Guided by the foregoing norms, the CA properly concluded that the proceedings before the LA
deprived the respondent of due process. Considering that the respondent was never impleaded as a
party respondent and was never validly served with summons, the LA never acquired jurisdiction over
his person. Perforce, the proceedings conducted and the decision rendered are nugatory and without
effect. This utter lack of jurisdiction voids any liability of the respondent for any monetary award or
judgment in favor of the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 13, 2009 and Resolution
dated April 14, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 02575-MIN are AFFIRMED.